[QUOTE=Hey Yo;15041762]Or maybe don't blame others for not thinking the obvious is in front of them when it's clearly not.[/QUOTE]
My fault for not anticipating your stupidity. Moving on.
Printable View
[QUOTE=Hey Yo;15041762]Or maybe don't blame others for not thinking the obvious is in front of them when it's clearly not.[/QUOTE]
My fault for not anticipating your stupidity. Moving on.
[QUOTE=beasted;15041769]I really and honestly don't believe the Cavs would trade any of Mitchell, Garland, Mobley, or Allen for LeBron, so it makes them a non-starter. They are also an over the 2nd apron team so they cannot aggregate salaries.[/QUOTE]
Maybe they wouldn't but James is a highly profitable player for any franchise and likely an even bigger deal in Cleveland. The monetary aspect should never be disregarded. And he's also potentially a better fit for the team. With Garland you have a small backcourt that can be exploited by bigger guards. James allows the Cavs to matchup however they have to with anyone and Mitchell is still free to just be a scorer because James will be the point guard of the offense. If they are determined to get James (not a given but that would be the basis of this thread) then the Lakers are far better off finding a trade partner to get some value than they would be handing him his money so that he can leave (he's not going to give them any money back if he gets waived and it's not his idea for him to get waived). Darius Garland is a good player but the only edge he has over James as an asset is youth. That's important but we're talking about the most popular player in the league, still possibly a better player than Garland, also likely a better fit, and the greatest player in their franchise's history.
If they can't make the money match then that would be the end of it though, I concede that but the main point of they should be finding a trade, not just paying him to leave.
[QUOTE=beasted;15041769]I really and honestly don't believe the Cavs would trade any of Mitchell, Garland, Mobley, or Allen for LeBron, so it makes them a non-starter. They are also an over the 2nd apron team so they cannot aggregate salaries.[/QUOTE]
Makes sense for the cavs to break up their backcourt. Not sure why the lakers would want garland? They would want allen
[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15041773]Makes sense for the cavs to break up their backcourt. Not sure why the lakers would want garland? They would want allen[/QUOTE]
They world be better off with Allen. Would depend on how much of a bidding war they could create to get him and then of the team would still be good enough for him to accept that deal. The challenge when a player has a no-trade is always that you have to create a situation that they like. That's why they can't just pack him off to New Orleans or some team like that.
[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;15041770]My fault for not anticipating your stupidity. Moving on.[/QUOTE]
My stupidity... . I was just pointing out rhat full court didnt see what you called obvious. If it was obvious, then you wouldn't have been told that James has a no trade clause cause you sure as hell didn't say it in your post.
LOL @ Mr. Never-wrong. No wonder you're so fukkin miserable :oldlol:
[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;15041772]Maybe they wouldn't but James is a highly profitable player for any franchise and likely an even bigger deal in Cleveland. The monetary aspect should never be disregarded. And he's also potentially a better fit for the team. With Garland you have a small backcourt that can be exploited by bigger guards. James allows the Cavs to matchup however they have to with anyone and Mitchell is still free to just be a scorer because James will be the point guard of the offense. If they are determined to get James (not a given but that would be the basis of this thread) then the Lakers are far better off finding a trade partner to get some value than they would be handing him his money so that he can leave (he's not going to give them any money back if he gets waived and it's not his idea for him to get waived). Darius Garland is a good player but the only edge he has over James as an asset is youth. That's important but we're talking about the most popular player in the league, still possibly a better player than Garland, also likely a better fit, and the greatest player in their franchise's history.
If they can't make the money match then that would be the end of it though, I concede that but the main point of they should be finding a trade, not just paying him to leave.[/QUOTE]
James is on his way to missing the first 15 games of his 41 year old season, which may very well be his last. Who knows if he has a recurring injury of this sciatica. I don't think the Cavs would trade one of those for a potential rental of less than 1 season. If there was genuine interest it would have been explored in the summer.
I'm sure they would trade some combination of Hunter and loose change, but them we're back into the aggregation problem.
I get the premise of LeBron having more value being traded than let go for nothing. I'm only pointing out how difficult/ unrealistic a path that specifically the Cavs are.
The Lakers signed James son just to keep him happy. The Cavs and other teams wouldn't have gone after him because in the real world the Lakers aren't trying to get rid of James and most likely all you get out of going after him is a headline that that one of your stars was offered up in a trade and hurt feelings. If the Cavs had approached the Lakers they world have had to offer a lot while creating a team that James still thinks he can lead to a championship. That just isn't happening.
[QUOTE=beasted;15041780]James is on his way to missing the first 15 games of his 41 year old season, which may very well be his last. Who knows if he has a recurring injury of this sciatica. I don't think the Cavs would trade one of those for a potential rental of less than 1 season. If there was genuine interest it would have been explored in the summer.
I'm sure they would trade some combination of Hunter and loose change, but them we're back into the aggregation problem.
I get the premise of LeBron having more value being traded than let go for nothing. I'm only pointing out how difficult/ unrealistic a path that specifically the Cavs are.[/QUOTE]
If cavs owner wants him back it could happen. Lakers have what 3 1sts? Id give up garland before hunter. Lakers would give up their 1sts and more probably more for allen. Makes them a threat which they arent now. Cant see them wanting garland. Expiring contract is better for them. Cavs role the dice on one last run with old man river and replace the 1sts they gave up for mitchell.
I feel like lebron can still produce in spurts. He still averages All Star numbers.
[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15041789]If cavs owner wants him back it could happen. Lakers have what 3 1sts? Id give up garland before hunter. Lakers would give up their 1sts and more probably more for allen. Makes them a threat which they arent now. Cant see them wanting garland. Expiring contract is better for them. Cavs role the dice on one last run with old man river and replace the 1sts they gave up for mitchell.[/QUOTE]
It seems people in this thread are trying to shoot me down as "hey, it's possible". Sure. Anything is possible, even trading Luka for Davis. But, what I'm trying to tell you it is insanely improbable.
To spell it out, a trade for LeBron means aggregating salaries which isn't allowed when you're over the 2nd apron. The Cavs have the highest payroll in the NBA of at least $229.9M according to B-R (HoopHype says $232M, Spotrac says $242M), and the 2nd apron is $207.8M for this season.
This means the trade for LeBron would need to simultaneously shed a minimum of $21M within the same deal. I don't see how the Cavs make that trade and end up a net positive or even an equivalent afterward -- or a team that Lebron waives his NTC because he believes can still win.
To also spell it out in contact combinations, it would take a combination like:
Garland, Hunter, Ball
Garland, Allen, Strus
Hunter, Allen, Strus, Wade
Garland, Strus, Ball, Merrill
[QUOTE=beasted;15041813]It seems people in this thread are trying to shoot me down as "hey, it's possible". Sure. Anything is possible, even trading Luka for Davis. But, what I'm trying to tell you it is insanely improbable.
To spell it out, a trade for LeBron means aggregating salaries which isn't allowed when you're over the 2nd apron. The Cavs have the highest payroll in the NBA of at least $229.9M according to B-R (HoopHype says $232M, Spotrac says $242M), and the 2nd apron is $207.8M for this season.
This means the trade for LeBron would need to simultaneously shed a minimum of $21M within the same deal. I don't see how the Cavs make that trade and end up a net positive or even an equivalent afterward -- or a team that Lebron waives his NTC because he believes can still win.
To also spell it out in contact combinations, it would take a combination like:
Garland, Hunter, Ball
Garland, Allen, Strus
Hunter, Allen, Strus, Wade
Garland, Strus, Ball, Merrill[/QUOTE]
That is where the jazz and nets come in with cap space
[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15041814]That is where the jazz and nets come in with cap space[/QUOTE]
More like this is where Lebron invokes his NTC and the Cavs alienates half their rotation.
[QUOTE=beasted;15041816]More like this is where Lebron invokes his NTC and the Cavs alienates half their rotation.[/QUOTE]
If the Lakers were serious about trading James(and right now they aren't) the first step would be going to James and asking him what he would accept. And his answer to that question would eliminate a lot of teams, potentially including Cleveland. But right now we're just talking about an unlikely hypothetical, so it's more than fair to point out that he's gone back to Cleveland before and has ties to the area. If they are fielding a team with a better shot at a championship than he had right now with the Lakers that could definitely fit into a list of destinations he finds acceptable.
Much more likely, if James does leave the Lakers, it's because he decides he wants out and then uses the pressure of the no-trade alongside his status as an expiring deal to pick where he gets sent to. But between the no-trade clause and his son taking a roster spot it's very evident that the Lakers want him to stay.
[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;15041818]If the Lakers were serious about trading James(and right now they aren't) the first step would be going to James and asking him what he would accept. And his answer to that question would eliminate a lot of teams, potentially including Cleveland. But right now we're just talking about an unlikely hypothetical, so it's more than fair to point out that he's gone back to Cleveland before and has ties to the area. If they are fielding a team with a better shot at a championship than he had right now with the Lakers that could definitely fit into a list of destinations he finds acceptable.
Much more likely, if James does leave the Lakers, it's because he decides he wants out and then uses the pressure of the no-trade alongside his status as an expiring deal to pick where he gets sent to. But between the no-trade clause and his son taking a roster spot it's very evident that the Lakers want him to stay.[/QUOTE]
There are so many moving parts to a Cavs-Lakers trade that it's bound to cause some rumors to leak out given that a 3rd team needs to be involved and draft compensation would need to be moved around.
Many would agree that this season is the Cav's best chance at a title run in years. Do you take the chance to ruin it with mid-season trade rumors involving multiple important players to that run?
We are also talking about a hypothetical as if I didn't just name the player combinations it would take. Does anyone believe any of the 4 combinations I listed makes the Cavs a better team this year?
I also disagree that Lebron holds any leverage here. He's a month away from being 41 years old, and an expiring player who also holds no power to have the Lakers include his son in any trades. Even if LeBron wants to pull a Butler, the Lakers would just tell him to stay home. They're clearly capable of staying afloat as long as there are no Luka or Reaves injuries.
This hypothetical rabbit hole is too crazy at the moment.
All likelihood is if LeBron ruins chemistry, nobody is waiving him or considering trading him. All that's going to happen is Reddick just plays him less minutes under the guise of load management.
Lebron will not be traded unless he asks for a trade. LeBron will not be waived or bought out under any circumstances.
He has a no-trade clause, how could he possibly hold no leverage?
As for the trade combination you listed, Cleveland went out in the second round and with that payroll that's definitely not acceptable. If you believe that James could still defend and rebounds if he took a step back in his offensive load any trade based around Garland could be an on-paper improvement.